Slashdot Mirror
Darl McBride Interview
mpsmps writes "vnunet.com has a long interview with SCO CEO Darl McBride devoted entirely to the SCO/IBM suit. McBride radiates confidence, describing SCO's contracts as "bullet-proof." He says he thinks IBM is desperate to buy SCO because "the last thing [IBM wants] to hear is the testimony that is going to come out," but that SCO isn't interested in being acquired. Read the interview for much more on these and other topics." See also part 2 and part 3 of the interview.
... that is to say, they're a living oxymoron.
If SCO isn't interested in being acquired, then why are they sure acting like they are? All this posturing is pointing to wanting to be bought out to make them shut up.
i am a soviet space shuttle
It is not a matter of reeling in compensation for this. It's a question of what form it takes - the form of settlement - if it goes all the way to litigation. Those are, to me, more the unknowns.
IBM is going to string this out as long as possible, and won't settle. Why? Because SCO's continued existence as a company depends upon revenue from this case. It's the same reason they aren't suing other people (Apple, Microsoft, and the BSD's have been mentioned as targets, and one can infer from other comments that SGI is a target too); they don't have the money to carry on this long litigation.
In some respects, going after IBM first is unwise. If, in fact, SGI is a target, there would be a much greater chance of SCO winning, and getting some money. SGI doesn't have much money to give, but you start to establish some precedent.....
One thing I find really annoying about this case is that the Open Source community hasn't been able to point to a bit of code and say, look, there's the problem. Or alternatively, we've looked, and there is no problem. I mean, how hard can that be?
Let's just remind ourselves of the issue here:
SCO's lawsuit claims that IBM broke its contract with SCO by allowing parts of SCO's Unix V source code, licensed to IBM for use in AIX, to be used in the rival Linux operating system kernel.
Ok, I appreciate that SCO's Unix V source code is closed source, and so it is not widely accessible to the OSS community. But someone must have a copy or access to a copy, surely? I'm sure there must be people in the OSS community that actually worked on the original code, isn't there?
At the very least, can't we just highlight the code that IBM has contributed, and then say, if there is a problem, then it must be in there. As far as I am aware, IBMs additions are for "enterprise ready" systems. If that is the case, then I'm sure they could be taken out without affecting the majority of instances of Linux use.
If we had a distribution that was free of the IBM code, then doesn't that mean we have a distribution that is legally untouchable by SCO? I know IBMs contributions are probably very valuable and all, but are they worth risking Linux to vagaries of the increasingly irrational legal system?
I don't even think Mr. Smith even needs to exist. I think SCO is painfully aware that they're on their last legs, AND the fact they're in violation of so many patents that it would be completely ridiculous to even go down that path with IBM.
IBM files what, 20,000 patents a year? I'd give it a week before IBM had a list of at least a hundred patents SCO sits in violation of.. The only thing stopping them is the reluctance to come off looking like a bully.
Besides, IBM isn't the boogy-man.. They're actually a fairly friendly company, i'd say. Why would they bother to resort to scare-tactics unless they were legitimately threatened?
Bowie J. Poag
A more blatant attempt to plug the share price could not be found. If IBM were to try and buy, the share price would shoot up. Here's our friend Mr. McBride making that even more explicit to his current stockholders (don't sell) and potential buyers (buy us, we're going to go skywards).
Besides, I hear no rumours on the street (what a marvellous phrase, unattributable yet pseudo-meaningful...) that IBM are interested. In fact, everything IBM has done so far has shown a complete lack of interest in that outcome.
Cheers,
Ian
Yeah, it sure has IBM's lawyers in a panic.
/me rolls eyes....
You know, at first, I thought that McBride was insane -- totally reckless or totally corrupt. But now, I'm starting to think the man is just stupid. I mean, sometimes I talk to people and I disagree with them, but I feel nervous because they might be smart enough to prove me wrong. I don't feel that way with McBride. I read his comments and I just think he's stupid, and the courts will tell him he's stupid, and he just won't get it.
The last time I felt this way was with the pet-store guy who sued anyone who said anything critical about his terrible service. He was dangerous because he intimidated some people into settling, but mostly he just lost lawsuit after lawsuit. The poor fool probably still thinks he'll somehow turn everything around. McBride is just a reincarnation of that pet store guy.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
[b]Have you considered what would happen if you lost the case?[/b]
[i]I have nightmares about it. We're talking about the utter destruction of our company. But really, we have no place else to go. This is a balls-to-the-wall strategy. All or nothing. But it isn't like I can't jump ship if things go sour.[/i]
[b]Do you plan to sell Linux ever again?[/b]
[i]Don't be silly. That is a low-return activity. Our job will be to shake people down for money. That's a high-return activity.[/i]
[b]Would you actually like to be bought?[/b]
[i]God, yes! We'd love to be bought out. But it isn't going to happen whatsoever. Given that, it is best that I said that we don't want to be bought out, because it makes our case look that much stronger.[/i]
I'm more interested in what The SCO Group had to say about Novell's letter to them. There seems to be not much talk about it. The last I heard Novell was going to challenge SCO on Unix ownership.
- Auditing IBM's customers...I strongly doubt that SCO has a leg to stand on, unless they have a direct contract with them as well.
- Going over IBM with a fine-toothed comb to see what comes up...right. If they are so sure of themselves, they should push for a fast trial, which they obviously don't.
I think IBM is actually very smart in not doing anything at all while letting SCO run up legal bills and make more and more unwise threatening statement. Sooner or later, SCO will be deflated, and then the company actually will be totally bust.Stephan
...IBM is indeed guilty of what SCO claims? McBride makes a good point in that IBM has made no motions a company would normally make if it thought this case was frivilous. Naturally, I understand /. can be a somewhat jaded forum, but are we that confident in our legal system that we assume the impossibility of injustice?
But someone still has to take them to court over it. If they win their case with IBM (again, a hypothetical - don't get too froggy just yet), they have about a billion or so to fight with. Does anyone (FSF included) have the cojones to go up against that kind of cash funding?
We are talking a copyright trial here - not something the politicians are liable to pay a whole lot of attention to in the upcoming election year, when you consider that RIAA has managed to get almost all of their attention for the past year or so.
Again, I think SCO's on shaky legal ground here at best, and at worst, lying like bad rug, but IF they win, how automatic is it? I seriously doubt armed Feds in black helos are going to swarm the SCO hideout and demand the immediate incarceration of Darl McBride and Co. Someone has to show some sack and actually press charges.
This could be the test case for the GPL.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
What if IBM is guilty? What if they did misappropriate some proprietary code, on purpose or other wise? Sure the kernel folks will replace it and life will move on, but that will be very damaging to Linux. While we are all throwing stones at SCO maybe we shouldn't completely turn our backs on IBM. Their "support" of Linux may end up doing a lot of harm. Plus they may already be cooking up something they intended to replace AIX and Linux in the next five years or so. Before there was MS there was IBM.
- vphl
SCO is doing this to try and inflate, and keep inflated, a share price based on an extremely thin balloon. To keep that going, they have to keep shouting. If IBM makes specific replies, then SCO has something to use in the next press release. If they don't, it all has to come from within SCO. The longer it goes on, the greater the chance of SCO coming up with manifest contradictions, allegations that can easily be shown to be untrue in court, actual libel. SCO cannot afford to shut up and cannot afford simply to repeat themselves over and over, as with no new content the press will lose interest.
My personal interest in this is that 20 years ago we were involved with someone whose public utterances were very like those of Mr. McBride. He came up with so many allegations that our attorney started to believe that we were the liars, on the basis that no-one would make so many claims if they weren't true. But then it came to court...the originals of documents were mysteriously not to hand (faked photocopies). Witnesses were mysteriously unavailable. Foreign Chambers of Commerce had never heard of the companies he claimed we were in collusion with, who also seemed never to have occupied the claimed addresses. The guy fired his own lawyers. And suddenly he lost the case, a judge was telling him that he was considering whether there was a possibility of perjury, and he had huge legal bills to pay for both sides. I seriously believe that this man was so out of his tree that even as he faked documents, he actually believed he was reproducing something that "really" existed in the perfect world he lived in. Never underestimate the power of human self-delusion.
Not, of course, that I am suggesting for one moment that Mr. McBride is engaging in any improper activities, deluding himself, or seeking to rig the share price of a junk stock. I am sure that he is a totally ethical businessman and the merits of his case will soon become apparent.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Well, some people are thinking this is about the Matrix, so I guess I could also ask my question, which seems kind of far fetched, but still an interesting question.
From juridical viewpoint, would it be possible for IBM to hire the all technical (meaning coders and developers) staff from SCO and just simply put SCO out of business, leaving the marketdroids and executive staff soaking in their own... hey hey, kids... in debt?
Just wondering.
...why aren't we all shorting their stock? I mean, it seems to have sat around 4-5 for ages, and just recently jumped up to 8-10 (being about 10.5 today). Considering this jump in their stock price appears to be largely based on these ridiculous claims they have against IBM, and our general belief that these claims will end up being entirely unfounded, wouldn't it be sensible to put our money where our mouths are and put in a short order on SCOX? Isn't it possible to put an order in such a way that it has a failsafe, i.e. it sells automatically in case the price went over, say, 20 (so if they DID somehow bribe the judge and win, you wouldn't be going to bankruptcy when their stock went to $300 lol)? I've never dabbled in short orders before as they're more risky than straight-up stocks, but I would be curious if anyone had some thoughts about this situation where we're all pretty sure SCO's case is baseless, and that SCO is going to essentially vaporize as soon as their claims are debunked. Stay safe all...
"You go back to SCO's brand in the 1990s and it was Unix on Intel. SCO was primed to seize the multibillion-dollar server market of Unix on Intel that hit in the early 2000s that has in fact shifted over to Red Hat."
He's falling for a logical fallacy here. 'Unix on Intel' caught on largely because of Linux and its liberal licensing. No proprietary Unix vendor ever made substantial in roads in this area, and I doubt any would have. When ever asked about the benefits of Unix-on-Intel, the answers people give for it are the general openness of the platform and it being less expensive than a proprietary solution. This is not compatable with a license-fee-extorion scheme.
Its no different than saying "We just sold a million foobars for a dollar each. If only we had charged a million dollars each, we'd be gazillion-ares!
This from IBM's ammended response to SCO's complaint:
"Nineth Defense
Caldera's claims are improperly venued in this district.
Wherefore, defendant IBM demands judegement dismissing plaintiff's complaint and respectfully requests that the Court award IBM reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses and the costs and disbursements of defending this action along with such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper."
--Insert catchy
linux as a system, would simply replace that code which is offending. they are suing ibm over misplaced unix intellectual property, which they may or may not own. they have not presented a cease and desist to the linux community, nor could they without describing explicitly what is offending. "...but are they worth risking Linux to vagaries of the increasingly irrational legal system?" they've been told in germany to put up, or shut up... which did they do? vigilance is rational; paranoid is not. as the villan in the bruce lee movies says after sticking a couple knives in his opponents, "you must stay relaxed!"
McBride radiates confidence, describing SCO's contracts as "bullet-proof." He says he thinks IBM is desperate to buy SCO because "the last thing [IBM wants] to hear is the testimony that is going to come out," but that SCO isn't interested in being acquired.
A friend of mine has a three or four year old boy who, whenever he sees me, says, "You can't catch me, Carlo..." (which is an approximation of my name). But the fact of the matter is he knows that I can catch him and once I do I tickle him and throw him in the air and (usually) catch him which is the very thing he wants.
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
I know of submissions I did, for example, citing new news stories wherein SCO says that it has not gone after Linux distributers because of GPL, and saying a fair amount about GPL as though they had never noticed it before -- that McBride finally seemed to have gotten a clue that it would be extremely difficult to collect Linux royalties because of the GPL. It made for a good discussion of the very real protections of the GPL and the whole GPL angle of the case, choices and outcomes matrix, etc.
Sorry I no longer have the whole text of the article or of my writeup. When I wrote the article, the text of this article was freely visible for about a week, but in the last few days it has become password protected:
http://www.computerwire.info/brnews/6FF330841285 6B4D80256D4E005D45FA
It occurs to me that, all the foaming-at-the-mouth "this guy is trying to destroy Linux!" responses aside, Darl McBride is doing what he is supposed to do: he is defending the interests of SCO and its shareholders.
You may not like what he is doing, or how he is going about it--I don't like it much myself--but I am forced to admit that, at least on the surface, he appears to be protecting the rights (that is, the intellectual property) of his company. How SCO got those rights, or even whether SCO has the rights it claims, is a separate issue.
I believe that there is a revolution taking place in the software world, and Slashdot is one of its major outlets. Intellectual property as it has been may be becoming obsolete. But it is not yet, and there are still companies such as SCO which cling desperately to the ways of old.
I refuse to demonize SCO simply because they are not in tune with the Open Source movement's way of doing things. SCO claims that code which it has claim to was lifted lock, stock and barrel and placed into the kernel without copyright notices. If that's true, then indeed SCO has been wronged. There is no escaping that. What will determine SCO's merit as a company will be how they enforce their rights when or if it is discovered that this is indeed what has occurred.
While I dread what this situation might do to the Linux world, I must say that I admire Mr. McBride for having the courage to stick to his guns and do what the company believes to be right. It may be a mistake--and likely will be--but in this age of CEOs taking the money and leaving the company to burn, I applaud McBride for trying to keep his struggling company together.
Flame away...
I don't have much direct experience with SCO, but perhaps a couple of interesting anecdotes at least.
My first brush with it was the same time as my introduction to Linux, early 90sish I don't remember the year right off. A guy I knew, a friend's step-dad, was an old unix guy and after getting sacked from Honeywell where he had worked for decades he was trying to make a business on his own around Unix on Intel. He had a SCO dealership for a couple of months. He was constantly bitching about it, poor performance, crazy to set up, crashing for no reason, damnable intrusive copy protection system built in, and the price was pretty high too. We were experimenting with slackware at the time and showed it to him... a month later he threw SCO out the window and never went back.
Much later, only a couple of years ago, I worked a bit for a place that used SCO to drive a couple hundred dumb terminals. That was just a temp job while I found real work, and I wasn't in on the Admin side of it, but I know that the guys that were started cursing whenever you mentioned SCO. They were working on moving the system to Redhat instead, but of course it was proprietary no-source stuff, and while they had it running it was still freezing and doing odd things occasionally and they hadn't figured out why yet, so it was just in testing still. They were planning to junk SCO as soon as they could get it working stable too, and gritted their teeth and screaming a lot about exactly the same things my friends stepdad had been bitching about nearly 10 years earlier it seemed to me.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
It's the same old expensive, complicated licensed, shit. Even today's "modern" versions don't stand up against linux v0.98 from the mid '90s.
I've thrown around the name "SCO" as a bad joke for ~15 years (or more.) It really is laughable to see McBride's comments. With 20 years exposure to the computing world, I've seen exactly 2, yes, 2, SCO systems in active deployment (and one in the test lab at NCR -- the backend for the cash registers.) One was a Lucent VoIP gateway and the other is an ACD manager for a Meridian phone switch. (the former never went anywhere and the later has been replaced with a windows box.)
If I were doing an interview with the cheese at SCO, I'd want to ask stuff like, "Even if there is violating code, didn't your distribution of Linux under the GPL including that violating code mean that you obliterated its status as a trade secret?" or "Why won't you put your cards on the table and give some real experts some real freedom to examine the alleged violating code without the burden of an overly-binding NDA?" or "How do you claim to own all of these copyrights and all of this intellectual property when even in your own SEC filings your company claims it is merely a steward for Novell?"
Why ask all of these questions where we know we're just going to get pre-manufactured FUD?
http://starboard.flowtheory.net/